Comparison of tubal surgery with the CO2 laser and the unipolar microelectrode

The uterine horns of 40 New Zealand White female rabbits were resected and anastomosed to compare microsurgical anastomosis of the horns excised with microscissors, with a laser, and with a microelectrode. The rabbits were divided into four groups. In the first group of ten rabbits, 3 cm of tissue was resected by microscissors from each uterine horn; the cut ends were then anastomosed in one layer with 8-0 Vicryl sutures using the operating microscope. In the second group of ten rabbits, 3 cm of tissue was resected by laser from each uterine horn; the cut ends were then anastomosed in one layer with 8-0 Vicryl. In the third group of ten rabbits, 3 cm of tissue was resected by laser from each uterine horn; the cut ends were then anastomosed by "welding" the tissues with the laser. In the fourth group of ten rabbits, 3 cm of tissue was resected by a microelectrode; the cut ends were then anastomosed in one layer with 8-0 Vicryl sutures using loupe magnification. All the rabbits in the first and fourth groups became pregnant, only four became pregnant in the second group, and none became pregnant in the third group. It is concluded that the CO2 laser beam as used in this study has no place in tubal resection and reconstruction.